We can’t change what fate has in store for us, but we don’t have to face it alone.

These may seem like small things, but they’re proof that not everything in the world is terrible. There’s still plenty of good in the world, even if we can’t always see it.

I know many of these have nothing to do with climate or the environment, but some of them do (and I’m sure people will appreciate good news in general) so I’ll reblog this here anyway.

(Also hi followers, I hope you’re all doing well. I’ve been away from Tumblr for a while, but I’m still here, as you can see.)

Are you sure, Vi?😏

GUYS WHERE DID HE HIDE ALL THAT?

I wonder who’s gonna play her!

The Binghamton News, New York, November 27, 1925

don’t know but it’s definitely transmissible because now i have it

“Eda!?”

“Hey Rainstorm!”

“H-How? Wha-“

“It’s a long story, trust me. I’ll tell you everything when we get back.”

I swear this has already been done several times, but I couldn’t find it again so I just made it myself! bon appetite lads

When your cat resorts to psychic measures to get treats

I’m seeing a lot of posts/takes that start out “I simply can’t feel sorry for ScarJo…” and I’m just. like. who’s asking you to feel sorry for her? who’s asking for sympathy? nobody’s asking you to open your hearts, let alone your wallets. you don’t have to feel anything positive for her at all. legal right doesn’t require sympathy.

the question at hand is not “is scarjo a poor pitiable victim,” the question is “does Disney, as a corporate entity, have an obligation to fulfill its contracts, carry out its obligations, and keep its promises” and, yes? the answer is absolutely yes? your feelings on scarjo as a person should have absolutely zero bearing on the answer to this question

if anything it’s Disney who’s asking for pity, for sympathy, to be let off from having to do things it doesn’t want to do because its life is just so haaaaaard right now with the pandemic, and you know what? I simply can’t feel sorry for disney.

I simply cannot feel sorry for multi-millionaire Scarlett Johansson only earning $20 million instead of $30 million or what the fuck ever because Disney recognised that large parts of the world still can't safely go to the cinema on account of the deadly pandemic and released Black Widow on Disney+ at the same time as in theatres. But then I also support anyone suing Disney for any reason, so you see my dilemma

The case isn’t really about Scarlett Johansson. It’s about setting precedent for the way actors are paid when content is released on screening services going forward, and Scarlett Johansson is pretty unique in her position of both having a valid case for breach of contract and having a large enough platform, following and wealth that suing Disney won’t completely destroy her and her career.

She offered to renegotiate her contract at the point the decision to release on Disney+ was made, and Disney refused, that is what lead to the case.

The overwhelming majority of actors, even actor’s working for Disney are not millionaires, I know that because I am a jobbing actor, and I earn less in a year then either of my siblings, both of whom have office jobs.

When you get a film or television job, in addition to what you’re paid at the time you also get something that in the UK is called royalty fees, and in the US is called residuals. This occurs when the show or film is shown or licensed on another channel or network, almost always for a set period of time, although Netflix has started buying the rights to small indie films outright.

Royalty checks can be hilariously small. A friend I trained with once got one for £2.07 because their show had just been licensed to be shown on a Thai TV network, but more often they are a lifeline for actors. Most actors work minimum wage jobs in between acting gigs, and when you also have the cost of Headshots, Self Tape equipment, travel to auditions and lost wages whenever you have to take time off to prep and travel to auditions, you understand why equity wages are so high for individual jobs, because that one episode in a soap you got paid £800-£1200 for (minus 10-20% for your agent), could be your wage for 2 months and you would be considered a fairly successful working actor, even if it was your only acting job in that time period.

The case isn’t about a multimillionaire quibbling over how many millions she is being paid, although it’s likely that had Black Widow had a prepandemic release Scarlett Johansson would have been paid closer to 200 million than the 20 million she is being paid. Although Disney is pushing that angle hard so I fully understand why you’ve fallen into their propaganda trap. It is one of the very few opportunities for actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, directors, and all the other hundreds of creatives involved in the filmmaking process to challenge some of the status quo with streaming services and really ask questions about how royalties will work in the future.

There is a reason that the unions are backing the case and that’s because the other way around, breach of contract is a huge deal, there can be penalties of hundreds of thousands of dollars for contract breaches, often on jobs where you are paid a fraction of that, and believe me, Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Universal all persue those payments, and in certain circumstances even go out of their way to blacklist the artist.

If breach of contract is a big deal when actors and other creatives do it, it should be just as big a deal when studios do it, but it isn’t because Capitalism is rarely about rewarding artists and all about bottom line profit.

This case has the potential to really change things and help millions of ordinary, jobbing actors and creatives. I am 100% on Scarlett Johansson’s side with this and any reasonable person who cares about the well-being of artists should be too.

^^^^^^^^ this. this right here

she has the money for lawyers, let her set the precedent for those who don’t

You know how an elderly lady got third degree burns to a horrifying percentage of her body because MacDonald's was serving coffee at next-to-boiling temperatures and the lid came off her cup and spilled all over her, and she wanted MacDonald's to pay for her medical fees which to her were astronomical but to a mega corp like MacDonald's was a raindrop in the ocean, and instead of just paying the med bills for this woman they went out of their way to deride her and besmirch her and turn the story into "hur dur dumb American didnt know that hot beverages are hot," and thats the version of events everyone remembers, having been successfully distracted from the truth of the matter by a targetted, vicious, loud propaganda campaign by MacDonald's?

Well that's exactly what disney is doing with this "ScarJo is being horribly insensitive about the global pandemic we're in" and their "we were merely being socially conscientious and kind to let people stream our new movies instead of having to go to the cinemas for them" campaign.

This suit isn't actually about ScarJo. Quite aside from the fact that it IS a breach of contract to do a dual release and not hand over any of the profits from the streaming release (which she is absolutely entitled to), its actually about every single actor and writer and voice actor and etc that has similar contracts with all production companies, most of whom do not have the resources that ScarJo has.

Disney knows that if ScarJo wins this, they will be forced to equitably distribute income from their streaming service to those who have the right to such things. They do not want that.

They want you to pay your monthly subscription and your $36 early access fee, and they want to pocket all of that money, even though a portion of it should be going to the actors and creators of the film.

They know that if ScarJo wins, they will not be able to hoard as luck money. So they are running a discredit campaign.

"Oh look how heartless ScarJo is, for wanting MORE money even tho she already got $20m, and EVEN THOUGH we're in a PANDEMIC and there are people DYING. Its so HEARTLESS of her."

And guess what!! Its working!!!!!! People already aren't huge fans of ScarJo, for a range of reasons, but mostly, people are falling prey to the propaganda campaign.

Don't do that. Don't be the person who thinks an old woman who wants her crazy high medical bills paid because she was handed a poorly secured cup of boiling water is actually just a money grabbing idiot. Don't be the person who spreads Disney's "we're the good guys in this actually" bullshit. Don't fall for it.

This whole thing is SO much bigger than ScarJo.

The additional cherry on top is that disney, most likely in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that they are in violation of the contract, is also claiming that Scarlet has had her earnings potential increased because of her movie appearances.

They are trying to say they are paying her in exposure.

Anyone who has ever been self-employed, is a content creator, or an independent contractor, should be rightly incensed and TERRIFIED at the precedent that could be set.

Remember #DisneyMustPay Alan Dean Foster / Writers Must Be Paid?

Actors Must Be Paid and ditto everyone else involved in creating films. Speak out in support of them.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT “FORCED DIVERSITY”…

That’s what we talk about!

You know, the “Dad is an idiot” trope is a staple of sitcoms going back decades and in shows like Home Improvement which had a lot of traditional ideas of masculinity. The only trope you’ve listed here that is actually heinous is sexualizing children. It was a pretty conservative show overall with the main actor being a republican.  And if you’re counting having children identify as LGBT+ as sexualizing them, then you’re just being a bigot, because no one ever says that kids having a crush on someone of the opposite gender is sexualizing kids. 

This is all disingenuous BS because people complained about the Captain Marvel movie before it even came out just because a woman starred in it. And they didn’t agree with Brie Larson’s beliefs. Because if women express and opinion you don’t agree with, then they deserve to be threatened with violence and death threats like she was! 

The way people complain about anyone who doesn’t fit the traditional mold of a hero EVER having the spotlight in a movie makes it seem like the real politically correct culture here. They complain about other people being “snowflakes” while having a conniption fit over a black man existing in a work of fiction! I’ve even seen people say they’d want to ban women from having starring roles in action movies. Banning people that make them uncomfortable to look at from having more than a side role in movies seems to be the goal of anti sjw’s. Except in rare, special circumstances where they deem it acceptable and it’s “not forced,” of course! 

They want to complain about not being able to enjoy something without an agenda being shoved down their throat? Many people can’t enjoy a piece of media without having to witness endless complaints about it because someone dared to cast a person with more melanin in their skin than them in a leading role! I mean, if these people want to accuse others of being too sensitive to deal with the real world, maybe they need to look in the mirror.